Lieberman Introduces New Censorship Bill In Kneejerk Response To Wikileaks

from the where's-that-first-amendment dept

With Amazon dumping Wikileaks due to pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, it seems to have only emboldened Lieberman to shred more of the First Amendment he's supposed to be protecting. First, he has continued pressuring other companies to not host Wikileaks content. This has resulted in Tableau Software removing a visualization of Wikileaks data. People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, but because of Lieberman's grandstanding, the company felt the need to remove the chart. Of course, you can still find the damn chart everywhere online, and I'm going to publish it here (Senator, feel free to give me a call about this), because it should be damn obvious that publishing something like this is not revealing any sensitive info. It's all based on the data around the leaked cables, not the cables themselves.

As if to more directly trample the First Amendment, Lieberman has now introduced an anti-Wikileaks bill, which would expand the Espionage Act to make it a criminal act if you publish the name of a US intelligence source. Note that it is already illegal to leak such a name, but this bill seeks to make it illegal to publish the names after they've been leaked. This seems like a classic violation of the First Amendment. As Wired notes, something like this would make it illegal for a newspaper to publish the fact that former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noreiga was once a paid CIA intelligence source. Hell, there are claims that Osama bin Laden worked with the CIA decades ago. Should it be illegal to report that?

Here's the really ridiculous aspect of all of this, however. In an internet era when all of these details are available from tons of sources and file sharing networks well beyond any single website, going after websites to censor them and making it a crime to report factual information is such an antiquated and pointless move. Senator Lieberman's actions here are like trying to deal with a few bees entering his home by burning it down. Not only is it a massive overreaction that damages some key infrastructure, but it's also unlikely to be even remotely effective.

Re: Re:

Senator Lieberman doesn't seem to understand the fastest way to spread something is too threaten to block it., once the information is leaked then the press both old media and the new media has every right to print it, whether they should print it is another question.

Re:

Well of course they should. Even self-censorship of the press is detrimental to society. It might be wrong to reveal that information, but it should never, ever be wrong to report on it once it's leaked. That's how totalitarian states begin. First you make the press not report on specific illegal actions. Then you make the press not report on general illegal actions. Then legal actions it doesn't like...

Re: Re:

If it's only being held by one media organization but has yet to be published, it's not really leaked, is it? Beyond that, saying media organizations have a moral obligation to ignore their own personal morals and judgment is just absurd.

You need to do some serious qualifying if you want to start with a premise that astoundingly moronic. As it stands, you've effectively said that if the Times gets reliable word of an upcoming U.S. raid in Afghanistan, they should publish it and the goals of the raid and our soldiers' safety be damned.

There's not a whole lot of difference in that and leaking enough diplomatic documents to severely harm U.S. diplomatic efforts. I mean you do realize that wars happen and people die when diplomacy fails, yeah? I guess that doesn't really matter if you have a chance to sling some mud in the government's eye though.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Can you name one person whose life hasn't?

Fucking with the efforts of a nation to play nice with others is pretty damned endangering because the alternative is to not play nice with others. But then obviously Julian, and likely most of the people cheering him on, don't really care so long as they get to rake some muck.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

mine.

On a side note - just where did "playing nice" come from? If they truly were playing nice they should have no problems at all having their mail exposed? And if they wern't... then by your own argument/logic it makes no difference.

The governments of this world need to negotiate in public, for the public, on behalf of the public, and with the support of the public.... er.... drat forgot my point.

Anyway if they said in the back rooms what they say to the public.... no one would care what leaked.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Playing nice meant resolving differences with words rather than explosives. Whether the words were heartfelt or even true is immaterial since they're still better than explosives. Unless some asshat comes along and spills all the private conversations and makes that a thousand times more difficult. So, yeah, every human being on the planet's life has been endangered to some degree by that leak because neither you, nor I, nor Julian can remotely assure anyone that things will all work out fine and a country that would have been willing to work with us on say the Iran problem won't now give us the finger and help Iran instead.

Guy, you're an idealist fool. Diplomacy can not be done publicly. Full stop. A large chunk of diplomacy is one country agreeing to ignore the vile shit another is doing in exchange for something more important. Diplomacy is far too ugly for soccer moms to ever approve of what's done in it but it keeps us from all killing each other. The world is not a nice place and you wishing it so isn't going to do a damned thing besides drive you crazy and annoy those of us who know better.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Guy, you're an idealist fool. Diplomacy can not be done publicly. Full stop. A large chunk of diplomacy is one country agreeing to ignore the vile shit another is doing in exchange for something more important. Diplomacy is far too ugly for soccer moms to ever approve of what's done in it but it keeps us from all killing each other. The world is not a nice place and you wishing it so isn't going to do a damned thing besides drive you crazy and annoy those of us who know better.

So what you are saying is that people are stupid and people who are paid to lie, deceive and look the other way are better?

Really?

And you know better? How?

I have been in slums, jungles, traveled the seven seas and the most reasonable people I ever met where mostly simple people, I endured everything from freezing cold, hunger and violence with bullets flying everywhere, what did you do exactly to get an understand of the world?

You wanna know why the American people is celebrating Wikileaks?

Because of that BS of "people who know better". The best times America ever saw was when the government sided with the people how do you explain that away?

I know of politicians and what they do and most of the time I got disgusted to be near them, not that I'm a saint but between them and gansters I see not much difference and you are saying people should trust their public officials blindly?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Kid (no, I have no idea how old you are but you certainly think like a child), you and all those wonderful people you met can't go a single day without lying. And they most certainly do not want to know what everyone is saying about them behind their back. Why then do you suppose diplomacy should work any differently? Here, I'll answer that for you. Blind, naive optimism despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

How do I know better? I actually pay attention to the world around me rather than blinding myself by plastering my ideals in front of my eyes.

Should you trust politicians? Fuck no. Absolutely never. You're never going to know their mind. The only thing you can trust are results. You have to take a leap of faith every single time you put someone in power.

You are a damned fine example of someone who most definitely should not know what has to be said and done to deal with some of the most ruthless and powerful people in the world. This leak was piddly, if still quite harmful, shit and you're ready to dance in the streets and burn effigies.

One of these days I hope you'll grow the hell up and join us adults in the real world. You know, the one where our diplomats have to deal with dictators and genocidal fuckwads who lie like they breathe. Until then, I'm done imparting any further wisdom to someone who doesn't want to accept it because it would tarnish their shiny ideals.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your response removes yourself from any sensible discourse. You've imparted no wisdom at all, but rather vitriol and mocking of people who would like to find a better way. Just because you are too old, or possibly inept, to see that things MUST change doesn't mean you're automatically correct.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's great to hear your patriotic (really, pro-administration) drivel and all, but at what point did the rest of the world stop thinking that it's the US who are the "dictators and genocidal fuckwads who lie like they breathe"?

Diplomacy needs secrecy and lying? Scheming and manipulation need secrecy and lying, and those things go far beyond the non-violent conflict resolution that your idea of diplomacy is about. Some secrecy is necessary, but too much secrecy gets innocent people hurt -- alliances between countries are one thing, but connivances are a very different thing.

For example, Wikileaks revealed recently that the US military thought the UK's military was "not up to the task" during the Iraq war. Blair was more than happy to put the UK in a costly war it had no business being in, just because he was being Bush's bitch (problem?). An unjustified war, no less. Perhaps the next time the US decides it wants to invade some random country, the UK won't be so ready to oblige without good reason. Is that really such a bad thing?

So, was Wikileaks wrong in publishing this information? True, a lot of it seems to be gossip, where some lame-brained diplomats are making inappropriate remarks about foreign leaders (whose fault is that?). Between the gossip however, there is important information that could be used to make the world a better place: for example, yesterday Wikileaks published documents that show the US army were using the British airbases in Cyprus for secret missions involving espionage and possibly torture. Is it a good or a bad thing that we know that now?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Can our government do more in these areas? Are they setting a good example?

What makes a stronger statement to a dictator, a few high ranking political competitors making some statements or a very large number of people standing together despite what such elites had in mind?

It's tough to attack someone with whom you empathize. And it's great when games are an accessible diversion.

PS: You will also note that most war hawks work hard to drum up war feelings. Then they want to shut free communication down and other forms of competition for information. Behind conflict there is misunderstanding. Understanding comes from truth not from lies.

Re: Re: Re:

You confuse morality with patriotism. Protecting the goals of an American raid and the safety of US soldiers is a patriotic duty, not a moral one.

Wikileaks is not a US organization and has no patriotic duty to protect US interests at the expense of its enemies. Publishing information about a pending American invasion would put American lives at risk, but it would also certainly save many lives of the invaded nation's soldiers and citizens. Publishing diplomatic cables makes it harder for the US to do diplomacy, but it might be very beneficial for the US's enemies.

So morally, the question is a lot more complex because we don't all have a moral duty to protect the United States.

Re: Re: Re:

You've effectively said...

Of course, no one has said any such thing. You made it up.

But beyond that, you're clinging to the myopic, naive view that adversaries rely on media (including Wikileaks) to get their intelligence and that they will be deaf, dumb and blind without it. Of course they don't. They have quite effective means of independently discovering the same information, and they're usually successful. (Consider: what's the price of a low-level diplomatic staff member who has unfettered access to a decent chunk of this and would like to supplement his/her income?) Or consider that the US government's IT infrastructure is apparently run by poorly-trained crack monkeys, is absolutely riddled with security holes at every level and in every agency, and can be readily penetrated by any newbie hacker or script kiddie who reads full-disclosure.

And beyond that: people die for lies every day. They're dying in Iraq and Afghanistan as you read this. Some of them are our soldiers -- dying for lies. Where's your concern for them? Or are you only concerned when someone dies for the truth?

Re: Re: Re:

You need to do some serious qualifying if you want to start with a premise that astoundingly moronic. As it stands, you've effectively said that if the Times gets reliable word of an upcoming U.S. raid in Afghanistan, they should publish it and the goals of the raid and our soldiers' safety be damned.

And what if the Times gets info about a forthcoming Taliban raid on the US?

And who set you up as judge over which side is in the right?

OK it may look fairly obvious in this case - but it isn't always so.

Would it have been wrong to warn the citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki about those "forthcoming American raids"?

Re: Re: Re:

You need to do some serious qualifying if you want to start with a premise that astoundingly moronic.

Okay, you want a qualification? Here's a fucking qualification:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- the motherfucking Constitution

And so it begins...

...and on the same day that I read about about an offshoot of Wikileaks starting up. Soon there will be 2...3...4...and they will be MUCH tougher targets for grandstanding, pandering weaklings like Lieberman to attack.

Joe Lieberman

Subject

Oh for EFF sakes. All of the governments and leaders affected by this leak are a bunch of whiners and complainers. They're just pissed off because they got caught blabbing negatively about their opponents.

I've read no reports of nuclear launch codes, names or locations of agents or spies.

They need to get over it and quit their whining and move on. They should've been smart in the first place but to use discretion and care in what they do and say just like the rest of us.

Re: Subject

I've read no reports of nuclear launch codes, names or locations of agents or spies.

No just some (often fairly accurate) characterisations.....

Josh : "Why do you suppose this one's so hard to spin?"
CJ : "Because it's the classic Washington scandal, we screwed up by telling the truth."
Josh : "All right. Let's try not to do that that much." - West Wing, Aaron Sorkin

Re:

TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS

Enough. The two businesses in these chambers have caused enough polarity and damage to last generations.

Get OUT!

Mr. Lieberman, I think you're a fuck.

Unlimited two and six year terms is a bloody joke with today's party money.

Too black, too strong.

The human wave of the planet, humanity - WILL overcome. (and it won't be flying a fucking flag)
You protect the heavy pockets, the entire design is for that protection. And you engorge yourselves. That's what you've become, that's what you've done. Go.

Re: People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, ---and they would be wrong.

Oh shit... go google logic and fallacies.

"All security documents are 'sensitive'. that is why they are classified in the first place.."

self-referential or whatever....

funny - by classified as an action you must logically allow un-classified to exist also which given the lack of perfection leads directly to the potential to assign a member to the group which does not belong ie: in error hence mis-classified.

Re: Re: People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, ---and they would be wrong.

Besides the fact that "secret" is really a relatively low level classification. I look at secret documents all the time. Hell, I work with people who have immigrated here (US) from China that have a secret level clearance.

Re: People have pointed out that there was no sensitive data in what it had published, ---and they would be wrong.

All security documents are 'sensitive'. that is why they are classified in the first place..

Is there no limit to your stupidity?
Documents are classified by default because the person doing the classification feels safer keeping stuff secret than letting it out and reading the material to find out would be a waste of time (and a security risk). This has the useful side effect of making the important stuff hard to locate in the mass of boring and useless detail.
Most of the important things are only sensitive for a very short period of time.

The military is well aware that keeping long term secrets is impossible and so organises itself accordingly.

How many classified documents have you seen?

wikileaks should be closed down, and the people running imprisioned.

The governments of Iran, China, North Korea and Burma will love you for that. As will the Taliban. Remember Wikileaks provides a safe whistleblowing route for the citzens of those countries also.

Its too late

Knockoffs

I wonder how many coders are going full bore right now designing the next Wikileaks type sites? Given the state of the worldwide economy, multinational corporations (non-USA most likely)to small startup companies would kill for this type of publicity and pay huge sums for ad space on the upcoming knockoff sites just for the vastly enormous hits alone. The Corporations will just be advertising so they're not liable since they didn't leak anything. Richard Kulawiec is absolutely spot-on. This will spread beyond containment. An outside context problem for many nations in the very near future.

Guy Rundle, Crikey: The GFC, Wikileaks collide - and the world just shifted

Guy Rundle, Crikey: The GFC, Wikileaks collide - and the world just shifted

"You can feel the change in the air, read it in every report. The more that the fused political-media-administrative elite try to write it off as 'entertaining anecdote' while at the same time mobilising state power to destroy the organisation, the more they reveal that something has happened. The old process of leaks - a document here and there - only served to reinforce the idea that the state had an unquestionable right to control information, and that there could be no other way to organise society or create law.

That legitimacy has had a fatal crack put it in. The whole question of who should know what has been put into play. There will be reversals, but we're used to those. As I may have mentioned, something is happening."

even after publication data is still classified...

not by statute but by Executive Order 13526, Section 1.1(4)(c) states "Classified Information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.”